Post on 10-Nov-2021
1
BEFORE THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of: CLAIMANT, v. INLAND REGIONAL CENTER, Service Agency.
OAH No. 2018101013
DECISION
Kimberly J. Belvedere, Administrative Law Judge, Office of Administrative
Hearings (OAH), State of California, heard this matter in San Bernardino, California, on
November 27, 2018.
Keri Neal, Consumer Services Representative, Fair Hearings and Legal Affairs,
represented Inland Regional Center (IRC).
Claimant’s mother and father appeared on behalf of claimant, who was not
present.
The matter was submitted on November 27, 2018.
ISSUE
Is claimant eligible for regional center services under the Lanterman Act as a
result of intellectual disability, or a disabling condition closely related to an intellectual
disability or that requires treatment similar to a person with an intellectual disability
(fifth category)?
Accessibility modified document
2
FACTUAL FINDINGS
JURISDICTIONAL MATTERS
1. On September 24, 2018, IRC notified claimant, a six-year-old-girl, that she
was not eligible for regional center services because the records provided to IRC did not
establish that he had a substantial disability as a result of an intellectual disability,
autism, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, or a disabling condition closely related to an intellectual
disability or that required similar treatment needs as an individual with an intellectual
disability.
2. On October 9, 2018, claimant’s mother filed a Fair Hearing Request on
claimant’s behalf appealing IRC’s determination.
3. On November 1, 2018, according to a letter drafted by IRC, the parties
held an informal telephonic meeting to discuss claimant’s eligibility. Following the
meeting, IRC adhered to its original determination finding claimant ineligible for
regional center services. IRC explained:
At this time, IRC is standing by its decision that claimant is
not eligible for regional center services. The records indicate
that claimant’s cognitive abilities are in the borderline to low
average range. She is currently receiving special education
services under the categories of other health impairment and
speech and language impairment. The records available do
not support that claimant has a qualifying condition for
regional center services nor does she have a substantial
handicap as a result of a qualifying condition. …
Accessibility modified document
3
DIAGNOSTIC CRITERIA FOR INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY
4. The American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) contains the diagnostic criteria used for
intellectual disability. Three diagnostic criteria must be met: deficits in intellectual
functions, deficits in adaptive functioning, and the onset of these deficits during the
developmental period. Intellectual functioning is typically measured using intelligence
tests. Individuals with intellectual disability typically have intelligent quotient (IQ) scores
in the 65-75 range.
DIAGNOSTIC CRITERIA FOR THE FIFTH CATEGORY
5. Under the fifth category, the Lanterman Act provides assistance to
individuals with disabling condition closely related to an intellectual disability or that
requires similar treatment as an individual with an intellectual disability but does not
include other handicapping conditions that are “solely physical in nature.” A disability
involving the fifth category must also have originated before an individual attained 18
years of age, must continue or be expected to continue indefinitely, and must constitute
a substantial disability.
The Association of Regional Center Agencies Guidelines (ARCA Guidelines)
provide criteria to assist regional centers in determining whether a person qualifies for
services under the fifth category. The ARCA Guidelines provide that the person must
function in a manner similar to a person with an intellectual disability or who requires
treatment similar to a person with an intellectual disability.
Functioning Similar to a Person With an Intellectual Disability
6. A person functions in a manner similar to a person with an intellectual
disability if the person has significant sub-average general intellectual functioning that is
accompanied by significant functional limitations in adaptive functioning. Intellectual
Accessibility modified document
4
functioning is determined by standardized tests. A person has significant sub-average
intellectual functioning if the person has an IQ of 70 or below. Factors a regional center
should consider include: the ability of an individual to solve problems with insight, to
adapt to new situations, and to think abstractly and profit from experience. (ARCA
Guidelines, citing Cal. Code Regs., tit. 22, § 54002.) If a person’s IQ is above 70, it
becomes increasingly essential that the person demonstrate significant and substantial
adaptive deficits and that the substantial deficits are related to the cognitive limitations,
as opposed to a medical problem. It is also important that, whatever deficits in
intelligence are exhibited, the deficits show stability over time.
Significant deficits in adaptive functioning are established based on the clinical
judgements supplemented by formal adaptive behavioral assessments administered by
qualified personnel. Adaptive skill deficits are deficits related to intellectual limitations
that are expressed by an inability to perform essential tasks within adaptive domains or
by an inability to perform those tasks with adequate judgement. Adaptive skill deficits
are not performance deficits due to factors such as physical limitations, psychiatric
conditions, socio-cultural deprivation, poor motivation, substance abuse, or limited
experience.
Treatment Similar to a Person With an Intellectual Disability
7. In determining whether a person requires treatment similar to a person
with an intellectual disability, a regional center should consider the nature of training
and intervention that is most appropriate for the individual who has global cognitive
deficits. This includes consideration of the following: individuals demonstrating
performance based deficits often need treatment to increase motivation rather than
training to develop skills; individuals with skill deficits secondary to socio-cultural
deprivation but not secondary to intellectual limitations need short-term, remedial
training, which is not similar to that required by persons with an intellectual disability;
Accessibility modified document
5
persons requiring habilitation may be eligible, but persons primarily requiring
rehabilitation are not typically eligible as the term rehabilitation implies recovery;
individuals who require long-term training with steps broken down into small, discrete
units taught through repetition may be eligible; the type of educational supports
needed to assist children with learning (generally, children with an intellectual disability
need more supports, with modifications across many skill areas).
Substantial Disability
8. The ARCA Guidelines refer to California Code of Regulations, title 17,
sections 54000 and 54001 regarding whether a person has a substantial disability. This
means the person must have a significant functional limitation in three or more major
life areas, as appropriate for the person’s age, in the areas of: communication (must
have significant deficits in both expressive and receptive language), learning, self-care,
mobility, self-direction, capacity for independent living; and economic self-sufficiency.
CRI DU CHAT SYNDROME1
1 The description of Cri Du Chat Syndrome was obtained from a document
provided by IRC in its exhibit packet, and was not contested by claimant’s parents. The
source of the information is unknown, as there was no source information contained on
the exhibit.
9. Claimant suffers from Cri Du Chat Syndrome (the Syndrome). The
Syndrome is a rare genetic disorder caused by a missing section on a particular
chromosome known as Chromosome 5. Children with the Syndrome will typically have
delayed development and some degree of intellectual disability. Sometimes, material
from another chromosome may be missing as well. Physical symptoms of a child may
Accessibility modified document
6
include: a high-pitched cat-like cry at birth; low birth weight; small head; rounded face;
flattened nose bridge; eyes spaced wide-apart; folds of skin over the eyelids;
abnormalities of the palate; small chin; and malformation of the ears. Health challenges
of a person with the Syndrome include: difficulties with eating and swallowing; gastric
reflux; constipation; high rate of infections; poor muscle tone; eye problems; hearing
loss; skeletal deformities; hernias; and kidney problems.
The severity of the condition can vary. Some persons are only mildly affected and
are able to reach their developmental milestones with speech therapy. Other children
may be profoundly intellectually disabled, unable to walk, unable to talk, and may have
a decreased life span. A majority of children with the Syndrome fall in between these
two extremes.
Recommended treatments for person with this Syndrome include physiotherapy;
speech therapy; communication alternatives (such as sign language); and occupational
therapy to teach coping strategies and new skills.
EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY CLAIMANT’S PARENTS
10. Claimant’s parents submitted a letter from claimant’s pediatrician, Michael
S. Yu, M.D. Dr. Yu wrote:
[A]ll children with [the Syndrome] have associated global
developmental delay (motor, fine motor, and higher level
functioning). Accordingly, claimant … has required extensive
physical, occupational, and speech therapy to help treat her
syndrome. Medially it is crucial that these services be
continued and given the nature of her syndrome I cannot see
a circumstance where they would be justifiably discontinued.
…
Accessibility modified document
7
11. Claimant’s mother believes claimant should qualify for regional center
services under the fifth category. Claimant is not a typical child. Claimant has other
siblings that were far more developed at the age of six. Claimant functions like a three-
year-old child. She has difficulties in school, judgement, and planning. Claimant is very
happy most of the time and willing to learn. There are some days when claimant is able
to put on her shoes but not tie them; on other days, she may not be able to put on her
shoe. Claimant does not have the judgement to refrain from touching something that is
hot. Even when told not to reach for the item because it is hot, she will nonetheless still
try to touch it. She will touch an item that is sharp or dangerous without realizing that
the item has those qualities. She has pulled batteries out of toys and the metal off of
pencil tips and chewed them. She has eaten an eraser. Claimant’s mother has
volunteered in a kindergarten class before and typical six-year-olds do not engage in
this behavior. Claimant receives protective supervision from In-Home Supportive
Services and claimant’s mother is the provider. Claimant cannot recognize colors or
letters, but she is improving. Claimant’s mother feels like they are being punished
because they have worked very hard to get claimant where she is currently at
intellectually.
EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY IRC
12. Holly Miller, Psy.D., is a staff psychologist at Inland Regional Center. She
obtained her Doctor of Psychology in 2009, and already held a Master of Science in
Psychology and Bachelor of Arts in Psychology. Dr. Miller has served in a variety of
positions, including clinical supervisor where she was in charge of the mental health
services provided by the County of Riverside Department of Public Social Services. She
served in various internships, all of which involved conducting or assisting in
psychological assessments. She has published scholarly works in two peer-reviewed
professional journals and has won awards in her field. Dr. Miller also has extensive
Accessibility modified document
8
experience in the assessment and diagnosis of individuals seeking to obtain regional
center services under the Lanterman Act, and in serving on the multi-disciplinary team
for IRC to review the cases of those seeking services. Dr. Miller is an expert in the
diagnosis of intellectual disability, and in the determination of whether a person
qualifies for regional center services under intellectual disability or the fifth category.
13. Dr. Miller reviewed documents provided by claimant, which included
school records, psychoeducational assessments, records from claimant’s participation in
the Early Start program, speech and language assessment reports, gross motor
perception reports, pediatric eye examination results, an occupational therapy visual
perception report, claimant’s individualized education plan (IEP), and a letter from
claimant’s pediatrician. Dr. Miller’s testimony and the records are summarized as follows:
14. Typically, a person who is found eligible under the fifth category will have
an IQ of 70 or below, and have corresponding challenges in adaptive and cognitive
functioning. The deficits in cognitive and adaptive skills are also typically consistent over
time; the deficits also must not be secondary to a medical or psychiatric condition.
15. With respect to a letter from claimant’s pediatrician mentioning that all
children have global delays, it is important to note that global delay is a completely
different category than intellectual disability in the DSM-5. According to the DSM-5,
global delay is:
[a] diagnosis that is reserved for persons under five years of
age when the clinical severity level cannot be reliably
assessed during early childhood. This category is diagnosed
when an individual fails to meet expected developmental
milestones in several areas of intellectual functioning, and
applies to individuals who are unable to undergo systematic
Accessibility modified document
9
assessments of intellectual functioning, including children
who are too young to participate in standardized testing. …
Thus, to the extent claimant may have met the diagnostic criteria for global delay
under the DSM-5, she is now six years old, so it would no longer apply. Moreover, global
delay is not a diagnosis that qualifies a person for regional center services under the
Lanterman Act.
16. Claimant qualified for Early Start services at age three at the Orange
County Regional Center (OCRC). In August 2015, the OCRC closed claimant’s case
because she turned three years of age and did not meet the criteria under the
Lanterman Act to qualify for OCRC services going forward.
17. A consent form to test claimant for special education services dated June
24, 2015, showed that claimant’s school psychologist found her to be, overall, in the
“average to low average range in cognitive functioning.” Gross motor skills were found
to be in the low average range. Academics were in the low range. Claimant’s speech and
language skills were found to be “low,” and speech and language as well as
occupational therapy was recommended. It was also recommended that claimant be
placed in a special day class as opposed to the general education setting.
18. Claimant’s IEP, dated June 25, 2015, showed claimant qualified for special
education services under the categories of “established medical disability” and “speech
or language impairment.” According to Dr. Miller, and as demonstrated in the IEP,
claimant was not functioning cognitively below a child of her age at the time of the IEP.
Claimant demonstrated the following receptive language skills: follows routine, familiar
with directions and gestural cues, identifies familiar objects from groups of objects
without cues, identifies photographs of familiar objects, understands a variety of verbs
relating to self-care, understands analogies, understands symbolic play, and uses
gestures and vocalizations to request objects and other items. There were no substantial
Accessibility modified document
10
impairments noted in her gross motor skills. Claimant tested as “average” in grasping
and below average in her visual abilities.
19. Claimant’s IEP dated August 24, 2017, shows claimant is now receiving
special education services under the categories of “other health impairment” and
“speech and language impairment.” The IEP noted that claimant has difficulty
participating in regular activities because of her motor skills and speech skills, which
impact her ability to state her wants and needs correctly and in an understandable
manner. The majority of her speech problems appear to be in the area of articulation, as
opposed to cognition. The IEP noted that claimant has made “excellent progress” in her
motor skills over the past year and “continues to show good interaction with her peers
and teachers.” Claimant is “happy and likes socializing with others.” Claimant responds
well to praise in instances where she is having difficulty doing something, and although
she struggles to stay focused, she will re-focus on activities with prompts. Regarding
claimant’s interactions with her peers, the IEP stated:
Claimant engages in play sequences with her peers through
two or more exchanges, and is oftentimes a leader with play
sequences. Claimant shows a preference for some adults
over others, and responds more consistency with those
adults when redirected or presented with a directive.
Claimant demonstrates nice pretend play skills in the
classroom (e.g. dressing up as a princess, playing
doctor/patient, pretending to take care of a baby). Claimant
is able to establish and maintain proximity with peers during
unstructured child directive activities. Claimant responds to
effective initiations from peers (e.g., hugs, holds hands).
Claimant will join peers in a cooperative activity, but requires
Accessibility modified document
11
support with her approach . … During All the Arts instruction
(Drama), claimant is able to interact with her peers in shared
activities that oftentimes become cooperative efforts (e.g.
building a house from a familiar story, playing a character,
etc.) Claimant has sown improvement in her ability to spend
longer times in each choice area, and engage with the
materials accordingly. Claimant recognizes
acceptable/unacceptable behavior in the classroom, and will
oftentimes direct her peers to make good choices in the
classroom. …
Regarding claimant’s adaptive skills, the IEP stated:
Claimant is able to remove her outer wear independently,
and hang up her backpack in her cubby. Claimant is able to
remove/put on her shoes on [sic] the correct foot. She is able
to put on/take off dress items (hats, shirts, jackets)
independently. Claimant is able to request snack/food items,
and request help when needed. She prefers to be
independent, and will oftentimes attempt to perform skill
[sic] on her own. Claimant demonstrates the following social
dining skills with verbal support: remains in her seat, eats her
food, wipes her face, assists with clearing table, pushes in
chair, and throws away trash. Claimant may require some
verbal reminders to focus on the task at hand, as she can
become interested in what her peers are doing. In the area of
bathrooming skills, claimant is able to pull pants up/down,
Accessibility modified document
12
fasten (w or w/o support), remove diaper (correctly
identifying whether she is wet or dry), sit on toilet, wipe (with
teacher providing paper), and flush toilet. … Claimant is able
to complete hand-washing/drying.
Claimant’s 2017 IEP does not show any significant functional limitations in three
or more areas of a major life activity, or any significant deficit in claimant’s cognitive or
adaptive skills.
20. In an October 12, 2017, Triennial Psychoeducational Assessment, the
evaluators administered to claimant a battery of cognitive and adaptive assessments.
The standardized tests administered included verbal and nonverbal assessments.
According to Dr. Miller, as supported by the assessment report, claimant’s performance
was scattered among multiple abilities, but overall, fell in the mid to upper borderline
range and the low average range. Claimant’s cognitive abilities improve markedly on
nonverbal tests as opposed to verbal tests. This type of performance is not what would
be expected for a person who has an intellectual disability. The assessment report
specifically considered claimant’s performance across all the assessments and concluded
that “claimant does not appear to meet the eligibility criteria under Intellectual Disability
as her nonverbal ability is within the low average range . …”
21. Claimant’s most recent IEP dated August 22, 2018, shows claimant
continues to be eligible for special education services under the categories of “other
health impairment” and “speech and language impairment.” The IEP stated that claimant
has progressed in the area of communication since her last IEP and “continues to do
well in attempting and demonstrating her skills.”
22. Dr. Miller did not provide testimony regarding several other reports
contained in IRC’s Exhibit packet. Those reports generally were focused on claimant’s
speech and visual challenges, and were not conducted by psychologists or persons
Accessibility modified document
13
qualified to render a diagnosis as to a person’s cognitive or adaptive abilities. The
reports show claimant does have impairments in her speech, as well as in her visual
abilities.
23. Based on the records provided, Dr. Miller concluded claimant is not
eligible for regional center services under intellectual disability or the fifth category.
Claimant exhibits strengths (nonverbal abilities) and weaknesses (verbal abilities).
However, a person with an intellectual disability, or a person who functions like a person
with an intellectual disability, has consistent deficits across all areas. Claimant’s cognitive
and adaptive skills do not show significant deficits, and she is not served in school under
the special education category of intellectual disability. One of her IEP’s specifically
excluded intellectual disability as a qualifying diagnosis. Claimant’s scores in the various
batteries of cognitive and adaptive testing are higher than what one would expect with
a person who has an intellectual disability. Her speech and language difficulties, as well
as her visual problems, appear to be secondary to her medical condition as opposed to
a developmental disability. Finally, even if claimant did have an intellectual disability or
required treatment similar to a person with an intellectual disability, the records do not
show she has significant functional limitations in three or more areas of a major life
activity, as required.
LEGAL CONCLUSIONS
BURDEN OF PROOF
1. In a proceeding to determine eligibility, the burden of proof is on the
claimant to establish he or she meets the proper criteria. The standard is a
preponderance of the evidence. (Evid. Code, §§ 115, 500.)
Accessibility modified document
14
STATUTORY AUTHORITY
2. The Lanterman Act is set forth at Welfare and Institutions Code section
4500 et seq.
3. Welfare and Institutions Code section 4501 provides:
The State of California accepts a responsibility for
persons with developmental disabilities and an obligation to
them which it must discharge. Affecting hundreds of
thousands of children and adults directly, and having an
important impact on the lives of their families, neighbors and
whole communities, developmental disabilities present
social, medical, economic, and legal problems of extreme
importance . …
An array of services and supports should be
established which is sufficiently complete to meet the
needs and choices of each person with developmental
disabilities, regardless of age or degree of disability, and at
each stage of life and to support their integration into the
mainstream life of the community. To the maximum extent
feasible, services and supports should be available
throughout the state to prevent the dislocation of persons
with developmental disabilities from their home
communities.
4. Welfare and Institutions Code section 4512, subdivision (a), defines
developmental disability as a disability that “originates before an individual attains 18
years of age; continues, or can be expected to continue, indefinitely; and constitutes a
Accessibility modified document
15
substantial disability for that individual. A developmental disability also includes
“disabling conditions found to be closely related to intellectual disability or to require
treatment similar to that required for individuals with an intellectual disability.” (Ibid.)
Handicapping conditions that are “solely physical in nature” do not qualify as
developmental disabilities under the Lanterman Act.
5. California Code of Regulations, title 17, section 54000 provides:
(a) “Developmental Disability” means a disability that
is attributable to mental retardation2, cerebral palsy,
epilepsy, autism, or disabling conditions found to be closely
related to mental retardation or to require treatment similar
to that required for individuals with mental retardation.
(b) The Developmental Disability shall:
(1) Originate before age eighteen;
(2) Be likely to continue indefinitely;
(3) Constitute a substantial disability for the individual
as defined in the article.
(c) Developmental Disability shall not include
handicapping conditions that are:
2 Although the Lanterman Act has been amended to eliminate the term
“mental retardation” and replace it with “intellectual disability,” the California
Code of Regulations has not been amended to reflect the currently used terms.
Accessibility modified document
16
(1) Solely psychiatric disorders where there is impaired
intellectual or social functioning which originated as a result
of the psychiatric disorder or treatment given for such a
disorder. Such psychiatric disorders include psycho-social
deprivation and/or psychosis, severe neurosis or personality
disorders even where social and intellectual functioning have
become seriously impaired as an integral manifestation of
the disorder.
(2) Solely learning disabilities. A learning disability is a
condition which manifests as a significant discrepancy
between estimated cognitive potential and actual level of
educational performance and which is not a result of
generalized mental retardation, educational or psycho-social
deprivation, psychiatric disorder, or sensory loss.
(3) Solely physical in nature. These conditions include
congenital anomalies or conditions acquired through
disease, accident, or faulty development which are not
associated with a neurological impairment that results in a
need for treatment similar to that required for mental
retardation.
6. California Code of Regulations, title 17, section 54001 provides:
(a) “Substantial disability” means:
(1) A condition which results in major impairment of
cognitive and/or social functioning, representing sufficient
Accessibility modified document
17
impairment to require interdisciplinary planning and
coordination of special or generic services to assist the
individual in achieving maximum potential; and
(2) The existence of significant functional limitations,
as determined by the regional center, in three or more of the
following areas of major life activity, as appropriate to the
person’s age:
(A) Receptive and expressive language;
(B) Learning;
(C) Self-care;
(D) Mobility;
(E) Self-direction;
(F) Capacity for independent living;
(G) Economic self-sufficiency.
(b) The assessment of substantial disability shall be
made by a group of Regional Center professionals of
differing disciplines and shall include consideration of similar
qualification appraisals performed by other interdisciplinary
bodies of the Department serving the potential client. The
group shall include as a minimum a program coordinator, a
physician, and a psychologist.
Accessibility modified document
18
(c) The Regional Center professional group shall
consult the potential client, parents, guardians/conservators,
educators, advocates, and other client representatives to the
extent that they are willing and available to participate in its
deliberations and to the extent that the appropriate consent
is obtained.
(d) Any reassessment of substantial disability for
purposes of continuing eligibility shall utilize the same
criteria under which the individual was originally made
eligible.
EVALUATION
7. Claimant’s parents clearly want the best for their daughter, and the many
services that have been provided by claimant’s school, such as speech and occupational
therapy, have assisted claimant in her abilities. However, eligibility under the Lanterman
Act, and in consideration of the ARCA Guidelines and applicable regulations, does not
depend on whether the claimant has benefitted from past interventions or will continue
to benefit from them; eligibility depends on whether a claimant currently suffers from a
qualifying condition or a condition that causes her to function similar to a person with
an intellectual disability or that requires similar treatment as a person with an
intellectual disability. The burden is on claimant to show by a preponderance of the
evidence that she qualifies for services.
A preponderance of the evidence does not show claimant is eligible for regional
center services based on a diagnosis of intellectual disability. Dr. Miller’s expert
testimony was credible and unrebutted by any other expert or documentary evidence
sufficient to overcome her conclusion that claimant is ineligible. Claimant’s records show
Accessibility modified document
19
she suffers from speech, language, and visual difficulties, most likely attributable to her
medical condition. Her cognitive and adaptive abilities vary, and she is stronger in the
area of nonverbal cognitive abilities than verbal cognitive abilities. In reviewing
claimant’s IEP’s and the records provided, claimant has shown improvement over time in
both cognitive and adaptive skills. A person with an intellectual disability typically
exhibits deficits across all areas, and the deficits remain consistent over time. Claimant
also has never been served in special education under the category of intellectual
disability; to the contrary, intellectual disability was specifically excluded as a qualifying
diagnosis in her 2015 IEP. In sum, claimant does not meet the diagnostic criteria for
intellectual disability under the DSM-5.
For the same reasons discussed above, claimant does not meet the criteria for
regional center eligibility under the fifth category, because she does not function like a
person with an intellectual disability.
A person may also be found eligible for regional center services under the fifth
category if he or she requires “treatment similar to” a person with an intellectual
disability. Claimant does receive speech and language, as well as occupational therapy.
She is also placed in a special day class to accommodate her needs. Persons with
intellectual disabilities often receive speech and language therapy as well as
occupational therapy, and also attend special day classes. There is a distinction,
however, between services received by an individual and the treatment received in order
to render a person eligible under the fifth category. In other words, to be eligible under
the fifth category, a claimant must establish he or she requires “treatment similar to” a
person with an intellectual disability. Establishing that claimant merely uses “services”
similar to those of a person with intellectual disability is not sufficient. A preponderance
of the evidence did not show that claimant requires treatment similar to a person with
an intellectual disability.
Accessibility modified document
20
Finally, a person seeking eligibility under the Lanterman Act must have a
diagnosis of a qualifying condition (i.e. intellectual disability or the fifth category) as well
as be substantially disabled as a result of that qualifying condition. Even assuming
claimant met the diagnostic criteria for an intellectual disability or the fifth category, the
records provided do not show claimant has significant functional limitations in three or
more major life activities. Claimant’s IEPs specifically show a well-adjusted child who has
the ability to interact with her peers, conduct herself appropriately, and respond to
prompts when necessary. While claimant may need help in some areas of self-care and
in getting her to refocus on the activity before her, there is nothing in the records
provided that show claimant’s deficits in adaptive skills are substantially disabling to
such a degree as to render her eligible for regional center services at this time.
ORDER
Claimant’s appeal from the Inland Regional Center’s determination that she is not
eligible for regional center services and supports based on a diagnosis of intellectual
disability or the fifth category is denied.
DATED: December 6, 2018
_______________________________________
KIMBERLY J. BELVEDERE
Administrative Law Judge
Office of Administrative Hearings
Accessibility modified document
21
NOTICE
This is the final administrative decision. Both parties are bound by this
decision. Either party may appeal this decision to a court of competent
jurisdiction within ninety days.
Accessibility modified document